Kosher Ham Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 There are college coaches that make millions per year. The only teaching they do is regarding the sport in most cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted April 12, 2011 Author Share Posted April 12, 2011 Yes! Duh... I think my long track record has proven this to be the case. Plus I the humor of that comment coming from you of all people is great. Touche, douchebag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allannis Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Because we don't really value education, oh we say we do, but we're not willing to really fund it as a people. Individuals may value it, but as a whole we'd rather property tax money be in our pockets so we can buy a new car. Or pay to send our child to a private school for a better education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Or pay to send our child to a private school for a better education. Guess you don't know that we pay to send our kids to public schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 LoL...yeah right as if that has ever worked . "Ever"? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Overpaid: Congress gets pensions after 5 years for life? No. underpaid: 93% of the people i've seen on that Dirtiest jobs we hardly even notice. We don't pay enough for schools? wow. We pay taxes We pay for supplies for our own child + 1/2 of another, if you show up to orientation you get to buy an extra product. Every other week we have to buy crap to get your kid in the top rewards. Every 3 months we get to buy books.. an occasional lost library book for my children . -------- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/22/robert-f-kennedy-communit_n_690497.html#s129588&title=Robert_F_Kennedy 578million for 1 public school "New buildings are nice, but when they're run by the same people who've given us a 50 percent dropout rate, they're a big waste of taxpayer money," said Ben Austin, executive director of Parent Revolution who sits on the California Board of Education. "Parents aren't fooled." --------- I was excited when school vouchers was found to be in the new budget: I thought their chances for college increased 83%... I always push Newports Achievable Dream that should be put in ward 8 today, then spread to other cities if it works there ALSO. we don't care about schools or our own children: That's the stupidest thing i've heard since we were trying to starve our childen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 I agree with you to an extent. Guys like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Warren Buffet are capable of creating multi-billion dollar empires and turning around failing companies. Every board would gladly pay tens of millions of dollars to a CEO if he/she could increase the value of the company by hundreds of millions of dollars. The biggest problem, as I see it, is that many C-suite compensation packages encourage officers to pump up stock prices in the short term, when their primary objective should be to maximize shareholder value over the long term. The good news is that activist shareholders are putting pressure on board compensation committees to align the interests of the shareholders and officers by reforming officer compensation. Another problem, at least in the eyes of many stockholders, is that officers who run companies into the ground oftentimes walk away with extremely lucrative severance packages. Boards will respond to criticism about severance packages by saying that, to attract top talent, they oftentimes have to offer “downside protection” to officer candidates (i.e., good severance packages). which highlights the actual underlying issue here... there really isn't a fully functioning "market" here. there are individual handshake deals, that signed by board members that either already are, or fully expect (or at least hope) to become ceo-s in their own right----- an inbred crowd of mutual back-scratchers. this is a texbook case of where gentle government oversight would be optimum to pop a mini-bubble. A board of directors is SUPPOSED to be looking out for the interest of the shareholders. Period. however, they are individuals, as well. Furthermore, a solitary boardmember, or even a single entire board has little incentive or ability to swim against the tide in this matter (if they suggest a "lowball" ceo offer now, they will be ostercized by the "herd" and much less likely to get their ceo offer in the future). the incenive for boards now is to offer convoluted, hazy and overgenerous offers. if the Government FORCES a level of transparency and different rules of the game with greater shareholder participation and doesn't ALLOW effed-up incentive-incompatable contracts with huge stock options and other short-term gimmicks.. then we can end up with a DIFFERENT equilibrium that is still market determined, but based on a different trajectory of salaries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteresis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rictus58 Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 So lets say there was a 50% increase in the rate of pay for teachers....how long until it draws people who are there for strictly for the money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 This should be a free market decision with a minimal living wage set for basic protections..... My problem is our government Republicans at least seem to not want a minimum wage protection ( livable wage) but they astonishingly want to maximum wage restriction.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 let the market decide....not the gov't. Nuff said. That's all well and good, especially if you are willing to work for peanuts. Because the Market noticed that people in other countries will, and that's where it went. The market will not concern itself with you unless you're the cheapest person that can do the job. And as we've been exeriencing, none of us in this country are willing or able to "compete" with that. the "market" will **** you, especially if you expect a legitimate wage. Because there's always going to be someone else somewhere else willing to do it cheaper. So prepare to live like a pauper, because that is what the market will eventually bear. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 if the Government FORCES a level of transparency and different rules of the game with greater shareholder participation and doesn't ALLOW effed-up incentive-incompatable contracts with huge stock options and other short-term gimmicks.. then we can end up with a DIFFERENT equilibrium that is still market determined, but based on a different trajectory of salaries. The government already requires public companies to disclose CEO compensation to the public. The exchanges also have a lot of rules governing CEO compensation. For example, NYSE requires: (1) the board to form a compensation committee of independent, outside directors to fix CEO compensation; and (2) obtain shareholder approve with respect to equity-compensation plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 So lets say there was a 50% increase in the rate of pay for teachers....how long until it draws people who are there for strictly for the money? You don't think we have that now? We should have a maximum class size of 10 kids per class, and we should have year round teachers no more of this summer break stuff. During the summer when the teachers aren't teaching school they should be required to be in training for the following year. Teaching should be a tenured position but their should be more competition at the untenured stage just like in universities.. Teachers who teack k-12 should be horse whiped if they don't provide sylabuses. Which would mean the majorty of teackers k-12 would and should be beaten severely in today's schools. I don't have any problem with Michel rhee's formula of exchanging higher saleries for weaker union protections in order to isolate and remove poor teachers from the school system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 So lets say there was a 50% increase in the rate of pay for teachers....how long until it draws people who are there for strictly for the money? but you'd also get a lot of the opposite... those fantastic would be teachers who never would because they are driven away by the income. More, if teaching was a more in-demand job then those people seeking the gig just for the pay would be easily filtered out because you'd have a larger quality pool to choose from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 I like the programs they have for teachers and police and fire dept. that gives them housing breaks for living in the areas they work. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Depending how rare or difficult the skill is to obtain will large influence how much a person will get paid. How many people are there out there that have the background and skills to run a fortune 500 company effectively? I am all for pay increases for teachers as long as we can start cutting some of the crap schools pull in addition to teacher evaluations and being able to easily get rid of bad or poor performing teachers. The education system needs to be reformed, but the unions are blocking that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 The whole crying about teacher's pay thing is a little overblown. They work 9 months out of the year and get a dozen or more holidays during the school year. Around this area public school teachers start in the mid 40s and are into the 50s and near 60s pretty damn quick. By comparison I work my ass off all but maybe 5 holidays per year, get 2 weeks vacation, almost no benefits and put in a SOLID 60 hours per week, often working 6 days a week to make the same money. There's already plenty of people who go into teaching because the pay is decent enough and job security and benefits are top notch. I'm not shedding any tears for them, that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 I am all for pay increases for teachers as long as we can start cutting some of the crap schools pull in addition to teacher evaluations and being able to easily get rid of bad or poor performing teachers. The education system needs to be reformed, but the unions are blocking that. I'm with you there. I'm all for teachers being paid well. They mold our future generations. But the unions aren't about education. Too often it's a secondary or even tertiary concern of theirs. Unions are supposed to keep people from being exploited by unscrupulous employers. Since education is government based, I don't think it applies,, since it is technically WE who are their employers.. including themselves. Government isn't a for profit industry. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allannis Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Guess you don't know that we pay to send our kids to public schools. I am not sure why you made this comment,I know we pay for public schools, I was talking about what we might rather spend our property taxes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 That's all well and good, especially if you are willing to work for peanuts.Because the Market noticed that people in other countries will, and that's where it went. The market will not concern itself with you unless you're the cheapest person that can do the job. And as we've been exeriencing, none of us in this country are willing or able to "compete" with that. the "market" will **** you, especially if you expect a legitimate wage. Because there's always going to be someone else somewhere else willing to do it cheaper. So prepare to live like a pauper, because that is what the market will eventually bear. ~Bang Side note: The company I work for outsourced a good deal of work in 2004-5, but has recently started pulling jobs back state side because the quality of work was effecting the product. I was happy to see that "the market" appeared to work in this case. The trade-off is of course not free, and we're paying more for each body, but if has forced us to be smarter with our hiring, organization and allocation of resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Side note: The company I work for outsourced a good deal of work in 2004-5, but has recently started pulling jobs back state side because the quality of work was effecting the product. I was happy to see that "the market" appeared to work in this case. The trade-off is of course not free, and we're paying more for each body, but if has forced us to be smarter with our hiring, organization and allocation of resources. That is a trend I'd like to see continue. Good for your company! I'd like to do more to entice companies to keep their workers and manufacturing in the US. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 By definition, ALL people are paid what they are worth to society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 By definition, ALL people are paid what they are worth to society. by defitition? this guy?? (he is "worth" tens or hundreds of millions of dollars) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiel_C%C3%A1rdenas_Guillen ---------- Post added April-12th-2011 at 07:01 PM ---------- by the way... do NOT search google images for "mexican drug cartel" ... i was just looking for this guy's photo, and instead got a face-full of severed heads and limbs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 A profession that should be on a higher payscale is Janitorial/custodian/cleaner positions. That's a job a lot of people simply WILL NOT do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 A profession that should be on a higher payscale is Janitorial/custodian/cleaner positions. That's a job a lot of people simply WILL NOT do. But it is a job that 99% of people can do. Hell, I make very nice salary, but if I was broke and that was the only job I could get, you would always have an empty trash can and clean floor in your office! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 The problem is the true worth of something is often blurred, take a houe for example the low interest rates and lack of regulation on getting mortgages and on how they were structured lead to homes being priced more than they would be worth with the same regulations in place. Nevermind what value they held in the eye of the buyer and seller. Another example celeberity or relation to one. Bristol Palin gets big money to talk up avoiding sex now if her mom was not the darling of the ignorant masses she would probably have to volunteer to speak not get paid big bucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.